Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Handling 'Unexpected Interrupt 0D' Errors Under NT?

Cliff posted about 12 years ago | from the low-level-serial-programming dept.

Quickies 59

Jersiais asks: "I am trying to get some command line stuff running on NT4 server with Take Control installed on an old 200MH Pentium II (Before anybody throws up, it's the test-it-&-wreck-it machine, not the real thing so there's no actual LAN there). Even on the real thing the compiler under command line has a tendency to blow up at random with 'Unexpected Interrupt 0D'. This only happens on the Pentium II, on the real (Workstation) thing it doesn't. I've found 3 different descriptions of Int 0D, none of which make any sense. Anybody any ideas how to get around it, or get rid of it? The compiler is 32-bit to interpreted intermediate and I have a RP calculator running as a test on the work system already, despite its use of soft interrupt IO."

cancel ×

59 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FDISK (-1, Troll)

user no. 590291 (590291) | about 12 years ago | (#4135170)

Install Linux. Now what I really wonder is how you would handle the expected 0D errors.

Re:FDISK (0)

fredopalus (601353) | about 12 years ago | (#4135228)

Install just linux. Trying to dual boot 2000 and linux is a pain. Use a compiler like gcc.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie= (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135180)

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& (2)

flonker (526111) | about 12 years ago | (#4135428)

Parent is right.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =utf-8&q=%22Unexpected+Interrupt+0D%22&btnG=Google +Search [google.com]

It's right there. Again, this doesn't belong in Ask Slashdot. It belongs on usenet, in one of the asm groups. Alternately, just use google, it's right there. Blargh. Why don't people do basic research before posting an ask slashdot?

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& (0, Offtopic)

mhesseltine (541806) | about 12 years ago | (#4135717)

Asketh the original poster:

Why don't people do basic research before posting an ask slashdot?

Better question: Why the hell do the editors publish these on the front page?

Not as good of a question: Why the hell don't we just set our preferences to block these from the front page?

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& (1)

Jersiais (597082) | about 12 years ago | (#4144468)

I did and it doesn't apply. That's why I posted it here. It doesn't occur at any specific point where I could guess my software is incompatible and there's no drive access going on. Unless it occurs as a 'normal' feature and NT usually handles it out of the way. It isn't even consistent between different user interfaces. What I was looking for was a way to integrate old command line stuff into NT with a reasonable user interface, which Take Command more or less provides (and to find out what it will do as compared to what it's supposed to do). I have got it through since - sometimes - but I guess it's just a case of do it MuckySoft's way or forget it. There are times when sodding about with setting windows up is not worth the effort compared to a quick dirty command line. But I was hoping it needn't be quite as dirty as what's provided!

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& (2)

flonker (526111) | about 12 years ago | (#4146185)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. And I'm not sure of your ASM proficiency level, so I'll go into some details that may be redundant to you. And I think you might have said you resolved the problem, so I dunno if this matters anyway.

According to http://swatch.binary.com.tw/delphi-ti/19057.html [binary.com.tw] , found with Google,

Interrupt 0d is the general protection exception and is generated by any protection violation that does not generate some other exception. See the above question for a more complete description of the problem. Common causes of this problem are network boards and certain hard disk controllers.

Interrupts can be either software generated, or hardware generated. Assuming this is a hardware generated interrupt, it's set when the processor receives an IRQ (Interrupt ReQuest). In this case, the processor recieved an IRQ for int 15. From the article, we get that IRQ 15 is our old friend, General Protection. Here, General Protection is (most likely) protecting us from bad hardware. If you trace through your code, or set AfxMessageBox() calls in your code in key places, you should be able to trace where the fault occurs. (AfxMessageBox() does block the thread until you hit OK, BTW.) At this point you should have figured out where the fault gets flagged, and from here you diagnose exactly which hardware is bad.

If you haven't figured out the problem this way, generate checksums of the file, both on the faulty hardware, and the good hardware, to see if it wasn't changed due to a faulty HDD. If the checksums look OK, then test your memory. If that tests OK, then you may be looking at a faulty CPU. Check to see how hot the CPU gets, that may be what's generating the error.

Or it may be something else entirely. Debugging flakey hardware in software is often quite tricky. I've thrown out MoBos before after diagnosing that something on the MoBo was broken, but never knowing exactly what it was. And I'll do it again. Oftentimes, diagnosing hardware isn't worth the headache.

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& (1)

Jersiais (597082) | about 12 years ago | (#4155786)

I think it's a speed thing. It turns up in faster machines too but not as frequently. The compiler was probably designed for a 486 or even 386, windows yes but not NT. On a 486 under DOS it's fine. It isn't my code that's doing it: it's the compiler or its libraries but is shouldn't be executing anything except itself at that point. The weirdness is that lack of consistency. It might go through, it might fail the moment it starts or anywhere between. A soft bug I'd expect to blow up after a specific time and probably as it's working on a particular source library - which it lists to screen as its going. My main concern was to check whether it would work (including run the result since it's an intermediate translating system) with NT. If it won't, it won't. I don't want my home stuff under NT anyway! Truth is, I don't like mysteries and 'General Error' is as bad as 'DOS Error 21' for informativeness.

Re:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4138075)

You have to wonder why these idiots can't use google.

Yet they can manage to use a form to submit the "story".
Idiots.

Reserved (1, Redundant)

norwoodites (226775) | about 12 years ago | (#4135199)

INT 0D is reserved according to my asm book.

Re:Reserved (-1, Flamebait)

Shadowcaster (58728) | about 12 years ago | (#4135277)

When has MS not screwed things up, or cared what's reserved unless it's reserved for THEM?

Oh, as to your .sig: Muslims aren't the problem. It's when they, for one instance, move to another country and never bother to learn the language they've moved into, or continue to drape themselves in laundry, or (and this is a big problem) they have no concept of personal property. I could go on about it alot more, but I'm already gonna get modded down for this rant. :p

Re:Reserved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135586)

Hey, you fuckhead modders don't live next to these pukes. As soon as you do, let me know.. IF you still have a computer left.

Re:Reserved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135728)

I would have modded this funny personally. Even though in this PC world were everyone confuses acceptance for tolerance, listens to every guilt trip they hear in the media and take it to heart, your comment might seem harsh. Like most things funny it is grounded in some truth which is why I find it funny like other probably do but are afraid they might offend someone in supporting it by modding it as such.

Re:Reserved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135494)

Why do people hate Muslims?

the real question, why do muslims hate everybody?

New topic (-1, Troll)

infornogr (603568) | about 12 years ago | (#4135229)

Maybe Slashdot needs "please do my tech support" topic.

Finally.. (5, Funny)

Noodlenose (537591) | about 12 years ago | (#4135232)

It had to happen one day:

This is officially the first /. post I don't understand.

At all.

Damn..

Re:Finally.. (1)

longbottle (537395) | about 12 years ago | (#4140198)

(sigh) You're not alone...

First things first (5, Insightful)

ObviousGuy (578567) | about 12 years ago | (#4135300)

What compiler?

What is crashing? The compiler? The command prompt?

What are you doing when it crashes?

Does this happen with other compilers? Other programs?

Ralph Brown's interrupt list.. (5, Informative)

Jon-o (17981) | about 12 years ago | (#4135306)

I know next to nothing on the subject, but when I was tinkering about back in the good ole' DOS days, I came across this list of interrupts: http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/rbinter/

I expect most people have seen it. It lists the following fod 0d:

0D INT 0D C - IRQ5 - FIXED DISK (PC,XT), LPT2 (AT), reserved (PS/2)
0D INT 0D C - IRQ5 - Tandy 1000 60 Hz RAM REFRESH
0D INT 0D - HP 95LX - INFRARED INTERRUPT
0D INT 0D C - CPU-generated (80286+) - GENERAL PROTECTION VIOLATION

Re:Ralph Brown's interrupt list.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135321)

The only one that seems at all likely in this situation is a GPF. Errant pointer in his compiler?

Re:Ralph Brown's interrupt list.. (2)

zenyu (248067) | about 12 years ago | (#4135721)

Compilers use a lot of memory. I bet the real difference between the two computers is RAM, a bug that never shows up on a 1 Gig machine will call for attention on a 64 MB machine.

Re:Ralph Brown's interrupt list.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135826)

If that's the case, the compiler isn't properly checking those malloc return values! :-)

Re:Ralph Brown's interrupt list.. (1)

Jersiais (597082) | about 12 years ago | (#4155595)

You could have a point. It's 96M and the problem is NT. With an old DOS box it behaves itself. I've met this random interrupt on faster NTs at work but not as often. That's why I was surprised to find it coming up so much. I think it must be something to do with a slow machine.

Re:Ralph Brown's interrupt list.. (2, Troll)

keesh (202812) | about 12 years ago | (#4136101)

I know next to nothing on the subject
So you're in a perfect situation to post about it on slashdot then.

Keesh, baby! (-1)

cut-N-paste Troll (584533) | about 12 years ago | (#4143369)

Come and play in the sand with us! You know where, and the place is called sporks-r-us.com

DO IT YOU BITCH!

Int 0D (1)

droyad (412569) | about 12 years ago | (#4135337)

Int 0D is for:
IRQ5 of 8259 (reserved for hard disk XT)

The 8259 is the onboard interrupt controler, so basically an interrupt on IRQ5 is occuring and windows doesn't know what to do with it, cause something is wrong.

Check technet.microsoft.com it's the first place to look regarding windows

Re:Int 0D (2)

Tony-A (29931) | about 12 years ago | (#4141117)

Check technet.microsoft.com it's the first place to look regarding windows
I didn't think Microsoft's technet was that out of date.
The XT, for you youngsters out there, was when they added a whopping big 20 meg hard drive to the pc. It's before Intel made the 80286.
With the AT (80286) they added a second interrupt controller, accessable by 16-bit cards and moved the hard disk interrupt to IRQ14 (primary) and IRQ15 (secondary) IDE controllers. IRQ5 now standard for lpt2 but somewhat avoided because of conflict with hardware interrupt 0Dh on 80286+, the famous General Protection Violation.
Check google.com when you actually need useful information.

Re:Int 0D (1)

Jersiais (597082) | about 12 years ago | (#4155631)

Well that clears the confusion about which meaning the interrupt has. Assuming that is that it didn't change after the 286 (Did anyone ever see a 286?). But WTF is 'General Protection Error' asposed ta mean? All I know is that it comes up on faster machines too but not as often and there is no regularity so it does look more like something machine side than software side. It's a mystery but I'm not losing much sleep over it because I'm only using something I know in the hopes of quick&dirty and also putting it through a C++ translator to familiarise with learning that horror.

Re:Int 0D (2)

Tony-A (29931) | about 12 years ago | (#4161618)

From 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual.
General Protection Exception
All protection violations that do not cause another exception cause a general protection exception. This includes (but is not limited to):
1. Exceeding segment limit when using CS, DS, ES, FS, or GS
2. Exceeding segment limit when referencing a descriptior table
3. Transferring control to a segment that is not executable
4. Writing into a read-only data segment or into a code segment
5. Reading from an execute-only segment
6. Loading the SS register with a read-only descriptor
7. Loading SS, DS, ES, FS, or GS with the descriptor of a system segment
8. Loading DS, ES, FS, or GS with the descriptor of an executable segment that is not also readable
9. Loading SS with the descriptor of an executable segment
10. Accessing memory via DS, ES, FS, or GS when the segment register contains a null selector
11. Switching to a busy task
12. Violating privilege rules
13. Loading CR0 with PG=1 and PE=0
14. Interrupt or exception via trap or interrupt gate from V86 mode to privilege level other than zero.
15. Exceeding the instruction length limit of 15 bytes (this can occur only if redundant prefex are placed before an instruction)

Basically, the machine code is trying to do something highly illegal. How it got there and why are a different matter.
Flaky memory is always a suspect.
Computed jumps based on leftover garbage (uninitialized variable) are another fun way to encounter the problem. Random code/data usually crashes eventually.
It is possible that it's just catching an attempted write to protected storage.

The Intel 386+ actually does have a very good hardware protection mechanism, which unless sombody managed a port of Multics, is effectively unused and subverted from protected segments to a nice flat space where anybody can do anything to everything.

Possibly a hardware problem, or bad software (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135384)

Int 0Dh is General Protection Fault, issued by the processor when illegal instructions or memory accesses are encountered. It's likely your compiler is catching GPF's instead of letting them pass on to Windows where you would get the generic "This program has crashed...blah blah" message. The interrupt could be caused by bad software or bad hardware. Gcc randomly crashes with the same interrupt on bad hardware, normally bad memory or processor cache.

Crappy hardware (4, Insightful)

cperciva (102828) | about 12 years ago | (#4135403)

Let's see... you have unexpected protection faults, you're running on antique hardware, and when you try the same code on a different machine, it works fine.

That sounds exactly like the symptoms of hardware which has exceeded its MTBF.

Re:Crappy hardware (1)

Jersiais (597082) | about 12 years ago | (#4155651)

It doesn't always work fine, just fewer of these weirdies on Pentium 3. I think it's probably incompatibilities with NT but it's strange that there's no consistency as to when it happens or whether it goes through OK. If it won't run on NT then it won't. But I'd love to know what's going on there. On really antique H/W - 486 under DOS it's fine. I expect it is Windows 95/98 compatible but not NT.

Unsupported Software (2, Funny)

eviljolly (411836) | about 12 years ago | (#4135439)

I'm sorry sir, but Slashdot does not support that software, please call your OEM for further help.

What the hell... (2)

buzzbomb (46085) | about 12 years ago | (#4135468)

You have a "200MHz Pentium II" and are getting unexplained errors. Perhaps I missed something, but the first Pentium II was 233MHz.

Maybe the problem is that you don't know what you're doing.

Either that or I'm a half-drunk asshole. Either answer wouldn't surprise me.

Re:What the hell... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135735)

Could be seems awefully impressed int 10h works under nt. Sounds like someone who knows just enought o be dangerous to me.

Re:What the hell... (5, Funny)

realgone (147744) | about 12 years ago | (#4136289)

Maybe the problem is that you don't know what you're doing.
Either that or I'm a half-drunk asshole. Either answer wouldn't surprise me.
We should also consider the possibility that you're half-drunk *because* you don't know what you're doing. I mean, come on -- you posted this at 1 a.m. and you *still* weren't fully hoisted yet? What were you drinking, Tequiza or something?

Get with the program, people...

Re:What the hell... (1)

mrpepsi (587951) | about 12 years ago | (#4144347)

Not true. I had a Pentium II 200 that technically was a factory overclocked 180 MHz.

Re:What the hell... (1)

qurob (543434) | about 12 years ago | (#4162566)


180MHz Pentium Pro, not Pentium II

This guy might have a Pentium MMX 200, hell he could have a K6-450, it doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about.

underclock (0)

rilliam (21558) | about 12 years ago | (#4135485)

yes underclocking is bad too.

now this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135528)

...would make an excellent post on Usenet. I hear the kids these days are even able to access it over the web [google.com] , so if you got this far, you can probably try over there. Of course, you are likely to get the same responses, which will be requests for more information.

I'm a busy man. Stop wasting my time.

Re:now this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135626)

"I'm a busy man. Stop wasting my time."

It appears you're wasting your own time. Don't feel obligated to respond with a complaint if you're really busy.

Not so much an "interrupt" in the "normal" sense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4135560)

It's probably a memory error... page fault or overflow or something similar... I think, based off the similar (borrowed) underpinnings taken from OS/2 for command line, Interrupt 0D errors are the same as OS/2's Trap 0D errors... each are error interrupts, same error code, different way of "naming" them (Trap/Interrupt).

It's cause usually by the application. A look at WinNT error docs that should come with their older compilers, should turn it up, or a look at OS/2's Trap Explanation help file (or whatever it's called).

- Rob
www.WebBinaries.com

Your equipment is probably hosed. (3, Informative)

Eneff (96967) | about 12 years ago | (#4135663)

0D is often hardware.

That's why it works on the other computer.

You have three options.
A. hope it's some sort of HD corruption and it's just windows being stupid. cheapest. Do a full scandisk on it, and see if it's having trouble. if it's not...

B. Replace the memory. Memory gone bad isn't pretty. If *that* doesn't help,

C. Throw it out the window, because you probably have some sort of motherboard or other bugs you just don't want to diagnose.

And thank you for calling Microsoft Technical Support. Do you want the bill on Visa, Mastercard, or Discover?

Re:Your equipment is probably hosed. (0, Offtopic)

raduga (216742) | about 12 years ago | (#4135838)

C. Throw it out the window

D. Throw out Windows, and install Linux

E. ???

F. Profit!

Re:Your equipment is probably hosed. (1)

Eneff (96967) | about 12 years ago | (#4135914)

Dude...

Linux can't do much with a bad HD, memory, or MB either.

nice troll, man.

Re:Your equipment is probably hosed. (2)

n9hmg (548792) | about 12 years ago | (#4136350)

Does everything on here have to involve Linux? Besides, I doubt that Linux is going to choke on arbitrary bad sectors. Bad sectors in the boot chain or swap, sure, but unless the drive is in the process of failing, you should have them all mapped out anyway at install time, via badblocks (mke2fs -c).

The parent post reminds me of this classic scene(shoot me if I got the band name wrong)

Beavis: Winger sucks!
Butthead: Dude, That's not Winger
Beavis: I know, I just felt like saying that.

Re:Your equipment is probably hosed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4137376)

Check out the badmem patches. I've got an old PII-350 that I put over a gig of ram in for free; I took other people's bad ram, ran memtest86 on it and passed the bad ranges to the badmem patch. neat.

Re:Your equipment is probably hosed. (0)

askii64 (512780) | about 12 years ago | (#4138243)

Do a full scandisk on it


Just a tiny note here: NT doesn't use scandisk. You have to use chkdsk on it. I suggest running it like this:

chkdsk /R

That'll do basically what would be similar to a "Thorough" scandisk scan.

0D (5, Informative)

adolf (21054) | about 12 years ago | (#4135830)

It's not an NT error, but an Intel one, dating back to the Beginning of Time (or the 6MHz 286, anyway). The same errors are reported in the same way under OS/2, and probably a number of other operating systems - I seem to recall Win95 puking out similar nomenclature during at least one BSOD.

Under OS/2, such screaching halts are known as "traps," instead of blue screens. And since OS/2 users were generally more knowledgable about computers then, than NT users are today, there's a lot of information available to help with fixing it.

According to groups.google.com [google.com] -archived message from 1993, 0D is a General Protection Fault.

GPFs happen all the time with bunky hardware. Try re-seating (or just purchasing new) RAM, CPU, and anything else socketed that you can find.

And if that doesn't work, toss the machine. Or give it away to someone with stubborn enough to fix it. Different boxes of similar ilk are available in the $50 range, these days - no need to spend any absurd amount of time with a diagnosis.

Re:0D (3, Informative)

Spoing (152917) | about 12 years ago | (#4138149)

In general, you're right;

1. Int13 (hex 0D) is an Intel CPU generated error code. (Don't shoot the messenger -- the CPU reports the violation and is very very rarely the reason for the failure.)

2. If the same software works on one machine but does not work on a similar machine it's often not worth the time to find out why it's failing. (Good guess: it's probably faulty hardware -- dammaged or designed broken.)

In addition...

3. Int13 can be caused by faulty hardware or software. Bad software usually wins the coin toss. Since it happens in this case while using a compiler, I'd say software is the likely cause -- the compiler or (hate to say) your source.

4. Only occurs when the processor is in protected mode. Simply stated; you've got no process isolation in an Intel processor's initial mode at boot time, in DOS (not a command prompt) and while in the system BIOS (aka "real" mode).

5. Protected mode enables the Intel MMU (memory management unit) and requires a program (usually the OS) to manage the GDT (general [memory] descriptor table).

6. If improperly managed by the GDT control program, processes can bleed into other areas. A proper response by the OS to violating and attempting to modify/read areas it is not allowed to use is to close the process and flag the error.

7. In quite a few situations, violations (int13 and otherwise) are OK and expected. These violations are used to trigger responses such as virtual memory page swapping and interrupt handling. Anything outside an expected violation may point to hardware failure, software corruption (by an errant program), or

8. Failures that happen on the OS level can only be cought _after_ the violation _as_long_as_ the process does not nuke critical parts of the OS or the GDT. This means that a violation that is announced usually means your system is in a suspect (possibly instable) state.

9. This is why few things should run as extentions to the OS (ring 0) and should be run at the user level (ring 3).

Rant: Video and other hardware drivers should never run at the OS level let alone other programs that are not part of the OS that specifically is designed to manage memory and other core system hardware. Limited and focused use of OS level resources is a necessity -- because if the OS is corrupted, all bets are off including sane int13 handling

Re:0D (2)

Spoing (152917) | about 12 years ago | (#4144780)

Correction: GDT = Global Descriptor Table. It's been a while since I've delt with this.

Re:0D (1)

Jersiais (597082) | about 12 years ago | (#4155730)

Thanks. It's not because of old hardware: just the reverse. It is worse on the test machine but it happens on the P3s as well. There may well be bugs in some of the source libraries. I've fixed the ones that actually threw compilation errors. From what you say is sounds like the compiler should be handling this and isn't. It does run in Protected. What puzzles me is the inconsistency but I'm getting a picture that possibly the code isn't fast enough to catch all the interrupts on this machine while on slower ones it does and on faster some of them get just plain lost so fewer get through to throw it out. I'm hoping to get a Linux fixed anyway and there is one compiler, one Algol68-to-C translator free for that. My original intention was to get stuff working and run it through the A2C to get an idea of the various C (or rather C++) libraries involved in standard work. I find C/C++/Java messy, inconsistant and feeble but they happen to be what's in use. Somehow you don't see that many adverts for Eiffel, Ada, Mod3 or other exotica just like nothing ever stood a chance against Fortran and Cobol however much better.

Re:0D (2)

Spoing (152917) | about 12 years ago | (#4178137)

You're on the right track; if the code depends on hardware events, you have to deal with timing issues.

Another frequent reason is memory offsets. A slight difference on similar hardware (or with different drivers or software) may allow one system to 'work' (it's corrupting or accessing it's own address space -- BAD), or 'fail' (you get an int13 or other error -- actually a good thing; you are told something is wrong).

This is not an exhaustive list. Happy hunting...

200 MHz Pentium II? (1)

wbraunoh (22509) | about 12 years ago | (#4136317)

I believe the slowest Pentium II ever made was 233MHz. Perhaps the problems you're having are somehow related to the fact that a 200MHz Pentium II never existed...? :)

Intel NIC? (2)

kruczkowski (160872) | about 12 years ago | (#4136654)

Do you have an intel Nic? replace it. I found most BSOD to be from Intel nics. In linux they work fine, but in NT they just die at random.

general protection fault = possible memory errors? (1)

chunkwhite86 (593696) | about 12 years ago | (#4137313)

Try your programs/compilers on a machine that uses Registered ECC memory. You'd be surprised how many single bit memory errors can occur, especially when the internal case temp of your 'puter gets high, and also when the memory is getting old (as it clearly is in a 200mhz machine).

If you do not have such hardware available, try just swapping out the RAM in that machine for new memory and see if the problem goes away.

BTW I picked up a new SuperMicro DLI motherboard (dual P3) w/ ServerWorks chipset and ECC memory mandatory from ebay for $58 bucks.

Particularly on a software development machine, having ECC memory can prevent you from chasing odd bugs that are seemly random (at least ones that would be due to memory errors).

Or maybe we're both crazy.

Re:general protection fault = possible memory erro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4137639)

Supermicro makes excellent motherboards. I've never had a single hiccup from any of the ones I've used in the past.

Signal 11 FAQ (2)

Mignon (34109) | about 12 years ago | (#4140581)

I don't know if this [bitwizard.nl] will directly address your problem, but I found it helpful once for diagnosing a bad FPU. There's lots of good tidbits talking about bad hardware and its symptoms.

Exception 13, General Protection Fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4149161)

Doesn't anyone remember "Exception 13" from the old DOS/Windows days? from when M$ first started using the protected mode of the processor? 0x0D = 13. It's a "General Protection Fault", GPFs! :)

cowardly,
-craiger

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>